Independent Law journalists report on legal news for consumers, litigants & Scotland's legal community including features on justice, access to justice, law reform, the judiciary, politics & in-depth investigations, analysis and commentaries on legal related issues.

Tuesday, July 31, 2007

After a long battle between campaigners, consumer organisations, and the Scottish legal profession to get access to legal services opened up, the Which? super complaint seems to have done the trick with the OFT announcing today it was recommending the lifting of restrictions on the legal services market in Scotland, where for some time, anyone wishing or needing access to legal services or the courts has been forced to use a lawyer or advocate ... but if that lawyer or advocate, or their professional colleagues didn't want you obtaining legal services, or getting to court, that was it.

All eyes turn now to our Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill who wrote in Monday's Scotsman of his slight reluctance to give Scottish consumers the full benefits if the Clementi reforms which are enjoyed in England & Wales .. for reasons many seem to suspect are more protective of the legal profession rather than the public interest.

What is it to be Kenny ? open up the legal services markets as they should be ? or keep them closed because Douglas Mill & colleagues fear their wallets getting thinner while members of the public break out of the lawyers control on access to justice ...

Shouldn't we be doing away with this culture of injustice which has been generated by appallingly blatant interference from the legal profession in public life as this problem over access to justice ? where for 17 years, the Law Society of Scotland, along with allies from the judiciary and willing politicians have kept Sections 25-29 of the Law Reform (Misc Provisions) Act (Scotland) 1990 off the books, simply to maintain their money making business monopoly and restrict everyone's right to access legal services ?

Maybe the Justice Secretary should also be looking to extend the powers of the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and remove all regulatory functions from the Law Society of Scotland & Faculty of Advocates because both self regulators have proved they don't have any impartiality at all, and got used to pursuing an agenda of anti client bias which will never change.

The Justice Secretary might also be advised to keep a close eye on fiddles & dirty tricks presently put into motion by the Law Society of Scotland over the new SLCC to gain a foothold within it's organisational structure ...

Here are some of the articles I've covered on the access to justice issue in the past, showing the difficulties of breaking the solicitors & advocates stranglehold on legal services in Scotland .. a lot of opposition of course from the legal profession and friendly politicians is evident, due to the size of the legal markets in profit terms .. and those little advantages which come from being the only ones who decide who gets access to justice and who gets justice denied....

The OFT has today made recommendations to the Scottish Executive and the legal professions in Scotland to lift restrictions which could be causing harm to consumers.

In Scotland there are restrictions on advocates' business structures, solicitors and advocates providing services jointly, third party entry into the market, and direct consumer access to advocates. The decision to recommend lifting these restrictions follows a super-complaint from Which? that called for these restrictions to be removed.

Which? argued that the current restrictions against such practices prevent legal services providers in Scotland from adapting their business to best fit the needs of Scottish consumers. The OFT concluded that the restrictions are unnecessary and believes that there would be benefits to consumers if they were lifted – such as efficiency gains and higher levels of innovation in the provision of legal services. The OFT is now looking to the Scottish Executive to outline its approach to removing these restrictions in Scotland, and the Scottish Executive has agreed to respond formally to these recommendations within 90 days.

Sean Williams, OFT Executive Director of Markets and Projects, said:

'There should be real benefits to Scottish consumers in allowing solicitors and advocates to adopt the most efficient businesses structures. I hope the Scottish Executive can work with the profession to remove restrictions that, in our view, are unnecessary and prevent solicitors and advocates from innovating to meet the needs of consumers.'

Kyla Brand, OFT Representative in Scotland, said:

'Scotland's legal services are hugely important for individuals and businesses – they underpin economic success and have always done so. The OFT wishes to see them grow and innovate, competing on equal terms with providers across the UK. We are committed to working with the parties in Scotland to make the system work better for all.'

NOTES

1. The right to submit super-complaints was created by section 11 of the Enterprise Act 2002. A super-complaint is defined under section 11(1) of the Act as a complaint submitted by a designated consumer body that 'any feature or combination of features, of a market in the United Kingdom for goods or services is or appears to be significantly harming the interests of consumers.'

2. On 8 May 2007 Which? submitted a super-complaint to the OFT about credit card interest calculation methods. See Which? website for details. Section 11(2) of the Act requires the OFT, within 90 days of receiving a super-complaint, to publish a reasoned response saying what action, if any, it proposes to take.

A RADICAL overhaul of Scotland's legal system to give consumers greater choice and a cheaper service will be recommended today by the UK's competition watchdog.

The Scotsman has learned the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) wants to lift restrictions on the way lawyers operate in Scotland, opening up the profession to competition for the first time.

That would pave the way for high-street banks and even big supermarket chains such as Asda and Tesco to enter the market.

The Scottish Executive has agreed to respond to the OFT within three months and ministers are expected to accept the recommendations and deregulate the legal profession, bringing in full competition.

If that happens, it will revolutionise the way law services are provided and dismantle the closed arrangements between solicitors and advocates that have existed for centuries.

The OFT move was prompted by a "supercomplaint" filed by the consumer group Which? It argued that the strict controls on how legal professionals in Scotland were allowed to practice hindered market innovation, restricted consumer choice and might have led to higher prices.

At present, solicitors are not allowed to go into partnerships with non-solicitors, constraining companies from other fields from offering legal services and stopping solicitors from setting up joint groups with accountants or surveyors - groups that Which? believes could offer cheaper services to consumers.

Also, solicitors are the only people allowed to instruct advocates, a restriction that the OFT believes simply adds another layer of bureaucracy and cost to the process.

The OFT will recommend today that all these restrictions are swept away and the watchdog has made it clear it wants early and definitive progress from the Executive.

Kyla Brand, the OFT's representative in Scotland, said last night: "We are asking that there should be clear progress on this. There should be some policy statement by the end of the year."

She confirmed that, if the OFT's recommendations were implemented in full, it could mean the complete deregulation of the profession and the introduction of new players, such as supermarkets or banks. But she stressed that would depend on the way ministers and the legal profession decided to implement the changes.

The OFT did not take a definitive view on the call for an independent regulation body for the profession, taking control of solicitors away from the Law Society of Scotland. Ms Brand said this should only be decided once the Executive and the legal profession had decided to proceed on the lifting of regulations.

Kenny MacAskill, the justice secretary, is on holiday and was unavailable for comment last night. But yesterday, he wrote an article for The Scotsman making it clear he expected to drive through change in the legal profession and that the status quo was no longer an option.

The legal services profession in England is already some way down the road to deregulation, and there have been fears that Scotland could be left behind if it was not able to compete on a "level playing field".

Julia Clarke, from Which?, was delighted with the OFT's decision. She said: "They have confirmed our view that the current system of regulation is failing consumers. We now hope the restrictions will be lifted."

A spokesman for the Faculty of Advocates, which had given a cold reception to the Which? supercomplaint, would only say: "The faculty cannot comment upon a rumour."

Michael Clancy, of the Law Society of Scotland, which had called for no action by the OFT, said: "The supercomplaint was an important document and the society made its views known about the content of it."

Q & A: LEGAL 'SUPERCOMPLAINT'

Why was a complaint made?

Which?, the UK's largest consumer body, submitted a "supercomplaint", as defined in the 2002 Enterprise Act, to the Office of Fair Trading.

Which? asked the OFT to recommend removal of current restrictions within the legal services sector, including those on non-legal ownership of firms - allowing outside companies to own and run law firms - and access to advocates, which generally has to be through a solicitor. The argument was that existing business structures and working practices restricted consumer choice and could inflate prices.

Did Which? want to see anything else done?

Yes. It has a vision of an independent Scottish Legal Services Board to watch over regulation of solicitors and advocates or to take regulation completely out of the hands of the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates.

Was Scotland being singled out for reform?

No. England and Wales have led the way in many of the areas under consideration and legislation is currently going through the Westminster parliament to apply south of the Border.

What did the Law Society of Scotland make of the supercomplaint?

The society called for no action by the OFT, while recognising that some larger law firms in Scotland supported the introduction of alternative business structures as a way of trying to ensure a level playing field with English counterparts.

How strongly did the society make its feelings known about the supercomplaint?

Its chief executive, Douglas Mill, stated: "It is disappointing Which? has produced a document which has no evidential base and which does not contribute in a meaningful way to the debate on the legal services market in Scotland."

Was the Faculty of Advocates more tempered?

Not really. It warned of access to justice coming under "serious threat" and the dean, Roy Martin, QC, said: "It is not appropriate simply to translate arrangements passing through parliament in Westminster directly into Scotland. It may be said that the purpose of the supercomplaint is no more than to try to create a uniform regulatory regime throughout the UK for no reason other than regulatory consistency."

Monday, July 30, 2007

Kenny MacAskill is proud of the legal profession in which he formerly practised, just as many lawyers are proud of their work. Only natural I suppose, but not a view shared by many people in Scotland who are forced to complain against their lawyer on everything from fraud to embezzlement to falsely inflated bills, to theft, even to criminal activity.

I wouldn't be happy calling a family "malcontents" who had to fight the Law Society to complain about the way a lawyer stole their mother's money and played for time while she suffered & eventually died of Multiple Sclerosis, citing to the Law Society Complaints Committee that "since [his] client was dead, the complaint should proceed no further" and "the family had no further right of redress" - along with a twisted jibe his deceased client "wasn't very clued up on things on how to deal with life" and "it didn't merit ruining [his] long legal career over someone couldn't articulate their complaint properly".

Makes the blood boil, doesn't it .. good, let it boil then ... let people see the Scottish legal profession in it's true light - covering up at all costs and to any end, the crooked activities of it's members when people take issue with it's members conduct.

I don't think I would be too proud of a profession, which has struck out to victimise, maim, ruin lives and even send round murderers to it's critics - even to some of it's own people, to maintain it's preeminent position of power & influence, and maintain an immunity from the laws of the land - which have been twisted beyond belief by the legal profession.

No pride there folks ... Rather .. disgust ... and that's not just from the public, some in the legal profession feel the same way, but as ever, people fear for their jobs & livelihoods if they speak out against the 17 year reign of dictatorship within the Law Society of Scotland so there is conveniently no internal opposition to the nefarious plans of the Law Society's leadership to maintain control over access to legal services. Either that or those who say they are for independent regulation and harmonious client & public relations are a bunch of liars - you choose ...

Today, Kenny MacAskill writes in the Scotsman on the issue of changes in the Scottish legal profession and how the SNP Executive "will not be pushed into blindly following an English approach" ... based on arguments that "our cities and towns is in stark contrast to the huge metropolitan areas down south."

What has the size of the client base got to do with things when quality of service, honesty of service, and transparency of service are the real questions ?

There are almost the same ratio of solicitors to people in Scotland as there are in England - and by the looks of things, the same ratio of complaints too, so why oh why do the legal profession, and apparently, our Justice Secretary, fear the implementation of wider public access to legal services ?

Would it be by any chance that opening up wider public access to legal services - by means of getting to court in a way other than being forced to use a lawyer or advocate from the Law Society of Scotland, may cause ruptures in our creaky antiquated legal system, where control and restriction of who is able to actually get legal representation or access to courts has been the order of the day for so many decades ?

Fear .. fear of losing control of the legal system and fear of the damage which would be done, where an individual with a critical case against either the legal system itself or a government institution would be able to secure the very legal services currently denied to them under the present regime of 'the lawyers are in charge of who get's to court because they know best' is what seems to be driving the legal profession in Scotland against change and allowing anyone the right of access to justice.

It's called protecting a money making monopoly by restricting access to justice to maintain power and control over people's rights. As simple as that, Mr Justice Secretary. As simple as that, Mr Douglas Milll & Mr Philip Yelland. You at the Law Society know it very well - that's what pays your salaries and makes you wealthy, on the backs & lives of those you ruin.

I wonder if Mr MacAskill is trying to turn the argument into a 'sod off England, we won't take your orders' thing - a little something a media adviser from the Law Society ran past a journalist friend of mine last week ... because if so, it won't work.

Indeed, only a few weeks ago, I asked John Swinney's Department to have a look at regulation of accountants in Scotland, and you know what happened ? The DTI sent a letter ordering them, the beloved independent SNP Scottish Executive not to respond to me and not to look into the regulation of accountants - this after ICAS intervened and ordered nothing be done on my request.

So who doesn't take orders from English authorities now ? .... not so easy to deny that one, is it .... and hardly usable as an argument to generate public support against legal reforms which are actually working out quite well in England & Wales.

The following article by Kenny MacAskill appears to be one written for the legal profession - not really for the interests of consumers, and I'm sure the Law Society is proud of that stance, otherwise I assume the article wouldn't have appeared in the Scotsman today alongside Lord McCluskey's diatribe against criticism of how the judiciary & legal profession manage their affairs (which I will cover later in the week).

If you ask me, I don't think, based on the evidence of Mr MacAskill's 'policy statement' in today's Scotsman, that the Executive is serving the public interes in issues of access to justice - and I say that as someone who's had a lot more experience in access to justice than Kenny MacAskill - who will never ever have encountered such problems in his life of being denied legal services or access to courts by the legal profession. Rather, it appears the legal profession's interests are squarely on the table once more

Independence for some, but not for others ? transparency, honesty & accountability for some, but not others ? The Scottish version of "Animal Farm" on the way perhaps ?

I'm not trying to be too critical, Mr MacAskill - I'm speaking from experience in dealing with a crooked system which has denied me, and many others access to justice, as you and your colleagues know very well.

How about feeling pride in the long suffering Scottish public for a change, and give the people preference over the professions ? The right of access to justice & legal services to the public over the monopoly of lawyers to do as they please and dictate who gets justice denied ?

AS A former lawyer, I am very proud of the profession in which I once practiced. It has already changed and must change further to continue to provide an excellent service to consumers and businesses.

In a global world, Scottish businesses, including the legal profession, should be able to compete out with their borders as well as within. Some already do so and more should be able to do so. There is no reason why Scotland's legal services should not aspire to emulate other Scottish businesses, such as accountancy and finance, which provide an excellent service at home and abroad.

To do so they need to be able to compete not just among themselves but with others. The Irish provide such opportunities through mediation and other legal services. We can and should do likewise.

The OFT is shortly to publish its response to the super-complaint by Which?. Which? argues for the wholesale opening up of the legal market, along the lines of reform being taken forward in England. This will allow new business structures to form, bringing together lawyers and other professionals, ending the restrictions on clients having direct access to advocates, and creating an independent regulation body.

I look forward to seeing the OFT's response and will consider carefully what it says. However, we will not be pushed into blindly following an English approach. Scotland's legal market is different. The size of our cities and towns is in stark contrast to the huge metropolitan areas down south. Such a situation requires a different approach.

There needs to be change in the structure of the profession to allow those who wish to compete internationally to do so, while at the same time protecting those who simply wish to continue to provide excellent service.

For instance, the legal professions could modify existing practice rules to allow more competition. Alternative business structures could be explored to enable larger Scottish firms to compete internationally while protecting smaller firms. These measures could be implemented without the need for legislation.

I recognise some Scottish law firms are already concerned changes in England may put them at a competitive disadvantage - this cannot and will not be allowed to happen. Scottish legal services must be able to continue to compete to win business in Scotland and elsewhere.

I want the legal profession to help us design distinctively Scottish solutions. I have doubts about the approach taken in recent years of driving change through setting up publicly run legal practices. My initial view is to support innovation from within the professions to address under-provision of legal services in areas such as domestic abuse, and ensure there is real competition across legal markets.

This will be supported by our commitment to putting legal aid on a much more stable footing. I am prepared to consider circumstances where extra funding may be needed to ensure proper access to justice, although we must recognise that increased spending alone cannot be the solution to improving access to justice.

Like most politicians I have heard voices from within the profession urging us to let the professionals who know most about their business get on with it.

Well, here is an opportunity for the profession to turn rhetoric into action. I have met with both the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates to discuss the future structure of the profession.

The Law Society is developing proposals on alternative business structures for consideration at its conference in September and I look forward to seeing the proposals.

The Faculty of Advocates has agreed to consider what changes could be made to their practices.

While I appreciate the complexities involved in this, I have stressed to both the Faculty and Society that I expect them to come forward with their proposals for change as a matter of urgency.

The report by the Research Working Group into legal services can also help inform this work and I look forward to working with the legal profession and consumer interests on this next stage in the development of the profession.

The Scottish legal system is a fundamental part of our national identity. I am committed to ensuring that, no matter what changes it undergoes, it remains independent of government and is able to compete in both a national and global market.

Saturday, July 28, 2007

The process of bringing the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission into existence has taken another step in the right direction with the announcement by Justice Secretary Kenny MacKaskill that it is to be situated in Edinburgh.

No big surprises there for anyone, as Edinburgh is probably the best home for it, given the propensity of legal firms in the capital to be among the worst violators of clients rights over the years, all neatly kept under wraps by the present regulator of the legal profession - the Law Society of Scotland.

I'm pleased, of course, to see the SNP are going ahead with the formation of the SLCC despite all the threats, jibes, obstruction & interference coming from the legal profession & judiciary on this one ...

Of course, there are a few pointers to watch out for as the new Complaints body takes shape ..such unspeakable ideas as :

(i)The legal profession don't slip a few spies& allies into the new SLCC (already it has been rumored a few staffers from the Law Society are quietly preparing to be wormed into the SLCC as 'ears for the Law Society' ... a terrible thing indeed if true ...

(iii) We don't get the same old lay members who sit on each others Committees same old 'lay members' who sit on each others committees & fiddle away client complaints as has been general practice in the past by the Law Society and many other self regulatory bodies who conveniently place each other's members on each other's Complaints Committees to ensure client complaints get buried and there is no chance of litigation to recover compensation for the culture of negligence which has infected the Scottish legal profession like a virus over the past 17 years (oddly coinciding with the same people being at the helm of the Law Society of Scotland for the same past 17 years)

The new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission might have half a chance at being independent, accountable & transparent (three things the present self regulators of the Scottish legal profession could never claim to be) it these values were adhered to .. but with the legal profession and their allies going out of their way to make life difficult for the public & politicians alike on this issue, when will the core problems of the legal profession actually be tackled to stamp out the causes of these high levels of complaints ?

Surely, with the Law Society having been in denial for the past two decades on the quality of legal services in Scotland, consistently putting forward an argument it was effectively regulating the profession & maintaining standards to the highest degree- when it was not, there must be wholesale change within the Law Society of Scotland and the membership to bring new policies of marinating standards and treating clients with respect.

Only a change of leadership at the Law Society of Scotland will bring improvements to the legal profession and it's dealings with the public - after all, how can a profession be able to reform itself when it is led by the likes of individuals who have threatened our democratically elected legislatures with Court Action & bullying tactics simply because the right to keep control of complaints against colleagues (and fiddle them to the nth degree as always) was to be lost to a new independent regulator ...

Over to you, solicitors of Scotland to take your own colleagues aside and improve your public standing & standards of practice. Stop being led by the nose of people who have led you into one disaster after another and stop blaming clients & campaigners for the woes you yourselves have created.

Executive set to end public sector jobs exodus from EdinburghDOUGLAS FRASER, Scottish Political Editor July 28 2007

The move of civil service jobs out of Edinburgh is being challenged under the new Nationalist administration, with 60 new posts being located in the capital by the Justice Minister.

Kenny MacAskill yesterday said the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) will be in Edinburgh, where he is an MSP, and that the Scottish Executive is keen to see such scrutiny bodies get together in one centre so that they can cut duplication and costs.

Officials are looking for office space, or a campus, where other watchdog bodies could join it, such as the public services ombudsman.

The relocation of civil service jobs out of Edinburgh has been highly controversial, particularly with the shift to Inverness for the headquarters of Scottish Natural Heritage.advertisement

The previous administration wanted to continue the move, so that other parts of the country benefited from government spending on jobs, with a presumption that new agencies would not be in Edinburgh.

Former First Minister Jack McConnell even said it was good for Edinburgh that it should lose these jobs.

But he faced growing criticism from Edinburgh MSPs, including his own party's, that jobs were not being widely dispersed and that most were going to Glasgow.

The largest planned relocation, of more than 1000 civil servants in the Registers of Scotland, was put on hold.

An executive spokeswoman said yesterday: "We are currently considering the future direction of the policy on public sector jobs location."

The SLCC office, intended to operate independently of the legal profession on some categories of complaints, will be operating by late next year.

With up to 60 staff, it is aimed at ensuring complaints against the profession are resolved quickly and effectively.

Mr MacAskill, the Edinburgh East and Musselburgh MSP, was one of those who was critical of the policy while in opposition, and yesterday placed the SLCC in the capital city, arguing that is the centre of Scotland's legal community. The decision was "finely balanced", according to Mr MacAskill.

"After detailed consideration, a number of factors tipped the balance in favour of siting the commission in Edinburgh. Scotland's capital city is widely recognised as Scotland's legal centre.

"This decision therefore places independent complaints handling at the heart of the civil and criminal justice system and close to the hub of the legal profession.

"Taken together with the government's desire that the SLCC should share accommodation with other scrutiny bodies in the future, it is clear that Edinburgh is the preferred and right location for this body."

The SLCC is to be funded by a levy on lawyers, and a further charge to those who are complained against.

and the Press Release from the Scottish Executive on the SLCC ... does anyone get the feeling this new independent complaints body might not be all that we hoped for ?

Edinburgh has been chosen as the base for the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) which is due to be up and running in late 2008.

The SLCC, which will be independent of the legal profession, will have up to 60 staff and a remit to ensure that any complaints against the profession are resolved quickly and effectively.

Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill said:

"The decision of where to site the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission was finely balanced. However, after detailed consideration, a number of factors tipped the balance in favour of siting the Commission in Edinburgh.

"Scotland's capital city is widely recognised as Scotland's legal centre. This decision therefore places independent complaints handling at the heart of the civil and criminal justice system and close to the hub of the legal profession.

"Taken together with the Government's desire that the SLCC should share accommodation with other scrutiny bodies in the future, it is clear that Edinburgh is the preferred and right location for this body."

The SLCC was established by the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007. The Act gained Royal Assent on 19 January 2007 and it is anticipated that the SLCC will become operational in late 2008. Having selected Edinburgh as the location for the SLCC, the next step will be to identify suitable premises that meet the SLCC's needs in terms of space requirements and organisational efficiency. In conducting this search, other factors will also be considered such as shared services potential with other organisations and future co-location opportunities on a campus basis.

Key points of the new complaints handling system:

* New independent complaints handling body to be set up - the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission

* The Commission will be headed up by a board composed of a non-lawyer chair plus four non-lawyer members and four lawyer members who are appointed by Scottish Ministers after consultation with the Lord President of the Court of Session

* Scottish Ministers will have no locus in relation to the Commission's decisions on complaints

* Funding will be from the legal profession through two levies: a general levy and a levy on practitioners generating complaints. The Commission will discuss its draft budget with the professional bodies each January. Vexatious or frivolous complaints will be sifted out and will not be the subject of a levy

* Making a complaint will carry no cost to the complainer

* The Commission will act as a gateway to receive and sift complaints which could not be resolved at source

* The Commission will deal with inadequate professional service complaints and low value negligence cases (awards below 20,000 pounds) but the professional bodies and their discipline tribunals will continue to deal with professional discipline and complaints about the conduct of practitioners

* The Commission will be able to review the way in which the professional bodies handle conduct complaints and will be able to enforce its recommendations

* There will be a limited right to appeal the decisions of the Commission - by application to the Court of Session

* The Commission will publish an annual report which Scottish Ministers will lay before the Scottish Parliament

* The office of the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman will be abolished and the Commission will take over the review functions

The legal profession are of course, unhappy that'Which" have made a complaint to the OFT on the closed market of legal services in Scotland, where members of the public must use the services of a solicitor for legal services.

Roy Martin QC, the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates begin the latest round of counter claims on implementing the Clementi reforms in Scotland, with a story in the Scotsman newspaper today claiming "ACCESS to justice would come under "serious threat" from deregulation of the Scottish legal services market, as proposed by the Which? super complaint to the OFT"

The Dean of the Faculty's claim, is of course, nonsense.

The Dean should know all about access to justice of course, as his colleagues in the Faculty and the Law Society of Scotland have been controlling & restricting public access to legal services since time & memorial.

Why ? because if you want to get to court, or if you need to use legal services, you have to go through a solicitor or an advocate, and pay them for the services you use. There is no alternative in the current world of legal services in Scotland, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand from that simple explanation that the legal profession will obviously fight any changes to it's monopolistic business model, because that's the way they make their money from you.

For example. what if you have a case against the legal profession itself or a case that may impact on legislation the legal profession or judiciary do not want changed ? - chances are you get nowhere, and your injustice will continue for years, or perhaps never be resolved - simply because it's not in the interests of the legal profession to give you access to legal services, or access to justice.

Try getting a lawyer to sue a lawyer - or try making a complaint against a member of the legal profession or judiciary, then you will see just who controls access to Justice, certainly not the public, and far too many politicians, from ALL parties, have stood by for too long, knowing this full well.

Douglas Mill, the infamous Chief Executive of the Law Society of Scotland, couldn't bare to be left out of the publicity war today either, and launched into the Which super complaint issue by claiming "The working group concluded that that overall the evidence backed the case for non-intervention in a market which is balanced by supply and demand. It is disappointing that Which? has produced a document which has no evidential base and contains fundamental errors, and which does not contribute in a meaningful way to the debate on such an important topic as the legal services market in Scotland. The society believes that the OFT should take no action on the super complaint."

Here's Douglas Mill in an earlier article, ranting on in a somewhat suicidal manner about critics of his beloved membership and stewardship of the Law Society of Scotland for all these years .. bringing in 5000 plus complaints a year against some 9,500 solicitors ... well, hasn't he done well now !

Isn't it a pity it's taking an English based organisation to protect the public's interests in Scotland and open up the debate on access to legal services ? but it does show the power of the Scottish legal profession to keep its monopolistic business market intact and thwart change as much as possible to-date.

However, perhaps the intervention by the Which consumer organisation raises the question, where are the SNP led Scottish Executive in this affair ?

Is this a case of the legal profession intervening again with the Scottish Executive and interfering in areas of reforms for the public interest, just to retain their money making capabilities via a monopolistic legal services market ?

Is it not time to do something good for the public interest regarding the legal services market in Scotland, Mr Salmond ? rather than allow it to be run & maintained by the legal profession itself to make money and control the public's access to justice ?

ACCESS to justice would come under "serious threat" from deregulation of the Scottish legal services market, as proposed by the Which? supercomplaint to the OFT, the Faculty of Advocates has warned.

Which?, the UK's largest consumer body, wants the OFT to recommend the removal of current restrictions, including those on non-legal ownership of firms and access to advocates, arguing that existing business structures and working practices restrict consumer choice and may be inflating prices.

Which? also wants an independent Scottish Legal Services Board to be established, to either oversee regulation of solicitors and advocates, or take regulation out of the hands of the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society altogether. In its official response the faculty argues that Which? failed to show the legal services market in Scotland is "significantly harming" consumers. Its response warns the consumer body has not grasped that introducing so-called Tesco law would undermine the future of smaller firms throughout Scotland.

"Externally owned practices would be likely to be interested principally in the relatively straightforward transaction which can be 'commoditised'," the response states. "They would be unlikely to be interested in intractable or difficult cases, which professional firms currently handle. They would, in particular, be unlikely to be interested in such matters in relatively remote or sparsely populated parts of the country."

In an interview with The Scotsman, Roy Martin QC, the dean of the faculty, says the supercomplaint appeared to be trying to transpose English reforms proposed by the Legal Services Bill, possibly out of a desire for a uniform regulatory system across the UK.

"The supercomplaint openly promotes the creation of a Scottish Legal Services Board, which as far as can be seen would be identical to the one being created south of the Border with the same regulatory powers and functions," he says.

"In essence our position is that it is not appropriate, because of a number of factors, simply to translate the arrangements which are passing through Parliament in Westminster directly into Scotland. It may be said that the purpose of the supercomplaint is no more than to try to create a uniform regulatory regime throughout the UK for no reason other than regulatory consistency.

"Given the distinctive characteristics of Scotland and the Scottish legal profession, the desire for regulatory consistency would certainly not be a justification for the changes which they suggest."

Martin says that firms of solicitors, and the advocates that they instruct on behalf of their clients, are already providing access to justice "as efficiently as they can", considering Scotland's geography.

"It is interesting that the supercomplaint almost entirely focuses on transactional type business, such as conveyancing, rather than acknowledging that many of the services provided by the legal profession throughout Scotland are related to a whole range of needs, such as criminal court representation, civil court representation, family disputes, and custody of children," he says. "The fact that these things are done differently in Scotland and in the interests of justice ought to be done differently is a reason why we should not simply copy the regulatory arrangements which may be found to be appropriate in England and Wales."

The Faculty has also questioned whether the supercomplaint - made under the terms of the Enterprise Act 2002 - should be calling for changes to regulation that would require primary legislation to be passed by the Scottish Parliament. Its response also suggests that any action made by the OFT as a result of the supercomplaint "may not be lawful", as Which? has not fulfilled the requirements set out by section 11 of the act.

Martin adds that changes to the working practices of advocates would need to be considered by the Lord President, who has a role in regulating the public office of advocates.

In its response to the supercomplaint, the Law Society has also called for no action to be taken by the OFT. However, its position is complicated by the fact that some larger firms support the introduction of alternative business structures - if only to ensure they can have a level playing field with their English counterparts.

"The society is keenly aware that there are a number of interests which must be carefully balanced, including access to justice, competition in the legal services market and consumer protection," says the Law Society's chief executive, Douglas Mill. "There are a number of different proposals and business models currently under discussion, and the society is actively raising the debate to ensure that whatever changes are made to legislation, these competing interests are taken into account. The society is consulting with the solicitors' profession to gain their views of the Bill before the Westminster Parliament which will apply to England and Wales. It held a successful conference in London with its members based there to spark the debate and gain important feedback."

A major conference on alternative business structures is planned in Edinburgh on 28 September, and the society says it is also keen to see work by the Executive to build on the findings of last year's Research Working Group report, which recommended there should be no intervention in the market.

Mill adds: "The working group concluded that that overall the evidence backed the case for non-intervention in a market which is balanced by supply and demand. It is disappointing that Which? has produced a document which has no evidential base and contains fundamental errors, and which does not contribute in a meaningful way to the debate on such an important topic as the legal services market in Scotland. The society believes that the OFT should take no action on the supercomplaint."

If the OFT does decide to take action, however, then the society has called for research to be commissioned, to identify how the legal services market operates in Scotland, bearing in mind "the impact upon consumers" of the proposals set out in the super-complaint. A spokesman for the OFT says it is required to respond to the supercomplaint from Which? by 31 July, but he adds that he is unable to comment further.

Certainly Yes. There is currently no one organisation for anyone to go to in the event of a breach of Human Rights or a failure to comply with ECHR.

Yes, of course, one can go to a solicitor - but what happens if the legal profession don't want to take the case ? That means you have no access to justice therefore no avenue to redress the issues of Human Rights and since there is currently no other service on offer to look into or represent those whose Human Rights have been breached, that's it.

If a Human Rights Commissioner is to be put in place by the Scottish Parliament, it should be an effective independent, and even accountable regulator for people to turn to when Human Rights issues are breached or are up for debate.

Strong powers of enforcement of recommendations and the will to tackle serious and controversial issues against any & all parties in terms of Human Rights violations would be expected of such a Human Rights Commissioner, rather than simply fall back into the usual habit of making long rambling reports full of non-binding recommendations

A good example of a somewhat failed attempt at an Ombudsman service, has been the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman, whose office was created in the Law Reform (Misc Provisions) Act 1990.

Only allowed to make reports on cases where a complainer had exhausted the very corrupt complaints process of the Law Society of Scotland, the office of the SLSO could only make non-binding recommendations on complaints brought to it's attention, had limited powers of publishing it's findings against lawyers in the media (which were hardly ever used) and most people who went to the Ombudsman's office usually got the feeling it was an attempt at being an apologist for the legal profession's lack of proper regulation .. which is in fact what it was.

Here follows an example of a complaint report from the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman on one of my own complaints against a solicitor, Mr David Reid, formerly of Morisons Solicitors & Messrs Campbell Smith WS, both of Edinburgh.

The lawyer, who once I thought of as a wise & reliable solicitor, Mr Reid took a sickie when I discovered he had been a lot less than honest in dealings on my legal work, and is now unbelievably a Law Accountant adjusting bills for client service.

Mr Reid never bothered to apologise for what happened, or put matters right after he left me high and dry - in typical true legal profession style - something which certainly needs to be stamped out. Anyone familiar with reports from the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman will see a few familiar patterns in the SLSO report on the David Reid affair

So we are back to the issue of a Human Rights Commissioner for Scotland - which will be as much use as no use if the office is only allowed to follow along the lines of the much vaunted Police Complaints Commission for Scotland, which has already come out in the press and called for stronger powers since effectively, they have none.

Yes, we do need a Human Rights Commissioner, independent, accountable, and with effective strong powers and the will to use them. We don't need another limited powers Ombudsman just to prolong the long held culture of injustice in Scotland which too many organisations and public bodies have become used to.

Of course, if we were going to be sensible about it, we could tackle the issues of Human Rights abuses directly at source, and either terminate those organisations which continually abuse the public's Human Rights, or impose massive fines on them, limiting their services or even criminalising the issue and packing the Human Rights offenders off to jail. Sadly we know that won't happen .. but it would be much more effective than an ombudsman ...

Story follows from the Scotsman on some MSPs calling the Human Rights 'tsar' a waste of money. It's easy seen the Tories don't want one - is that because they are too busy supporting the professions who regularly breach the public's human rights & control access to justice ?:

The calls came after advertisements were published for a full-time chairman of the Scottish Human Rights Commission, who will head a panel of four part-time members and have an annual budget of £1 million.

Opposition MSPs said that the creation of the body - which will be charged with promoting human rights - was a waste of taxpayers' money.

Derek Brownlee, the Tory spokesman on finance, said: "This will be a glorified talking shop and a complete and utter waste of money."

Mr Brownlee called on the Scottish Executive to abolish the commission.

Thursday, July 19, 2007

In the words of Alistair Sim, Director of Marsh UK - there isn't a lawyer in Scotland who doesn't have a complaints record.

Well, with 5000 plus complaints a year, for the last 10 years, coming in against around 9,500 solicitors in Scotland, that would mean that either every lawyer has had around 5 complaints made against them by clients, or some lawyers have many more complaints made against them by clients, which the Law Society dutifully prevaricates, delays, fiddles, fobs off, etc to make sure the very cream of the crooked in Scotland's legal profession get off the hook every time while the client gets ruined.

Some fine examples of the Law Society of Scotland Client Relations Office complaints handling I have covered in previous articles :

So, with the pool of lawyers in Scotland being tainted in the blood of clients, the legal profession needs to look to other areas of the population to expand it's services, which is why we are currently being treated to a raft of stories on the recruitment of paralegals and the lowering of 'education requirements' of those joining the legal profession. Something perhaps along the lines of ... "you don't need all that education just now, we can train you up to be a good litte crook later on!"

The thing about paralegals, is they are of course, regulated by the Law Society of Scotland - so when your shiny new paralegal does as much damage to your case as your crooked solicitor might have done, there will be as much redress against their actions as we currently have with crooked lawyers - and that is none .. at least none until the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission comes along, if it survives the pasting the Law Society and the legal profession are currently giving it .. fiddling in it's appointments plans, having a few meetings on the side with politicians to 'limit' it's remit among other things.

The question too on paralegals of course, is, would you like to work for a well known, allegedly respectable firm of lawyers which has nailed clients to the wall on so many occasions previously ?

What good would it do someone to go work for a firm of lawyers, were for instance, a senior partner has paid for an assault to be carried out on a client ? or an Office Manger has assaulted one of the female members of staff & got away with it ? How much trust could someone put in a firm like that and what advantages could it bring paralegals who work for such a firm ?

Forget a law background, customer service skills matter most for paralegalsDAVID BORROWMAN

IF THERE is one thing all Scottish law firms welcome, it is the emergence of the paralegal profession. It provides a fulfilling career for many highly motivated people, and the qualification has earned the respect of the entire industry. However, many firms are split on how to recruit and train paralegals. Should you recruit people with some previous legal training or train from scratch? Caesar & Howie prefer the latter route.

First we look for people with the right attitude and abilities in customer service. Our firm's overriding priority is to ensure clients experience a personal and professional quality of service. We have therefore focused our recruitment efforts for paralegals towards people who can demonstrate excellent customer-service skills, then we train them to be paralegals.

We are fortunate to have a former law lecturer from Stirling University as part of our in-house training department who assesses the candidates and puts them through their training. This is supplemented by specialist paralegal training materials, purchased from Strathclyde University, as well as home study assignments. I believe that knowledge can be taught but attitudes and personality cannot. The technical skills can be acquired, but it is difficult to find good customer service via a textbook.

We recently recruited six conveynancing paralegals, none of whom had a legal background. Without exception they have excelled in the paralegal positions. They have completed their paralegal exams in just three months - the shortest time ever recorded in the firm - and with a further 6-12 months' practical experience will become fully qualified. All the candidates had responded to an advertisement in a local newspaper.One of the respondents was Wilma Hunter, a local government officer. She had always been keen on the law but had been put off by the competitive nature of the legal profession and the demanding entry qualifications. Wilma never thought she could gain a legal qualification, but now she is confidently dealing with our clients on their conveyancing transactions.

The key attributes we look for in paralegals are good communications, organisational and customer service skills as well as a great deal of common sense. Coupled with a willingness to learn, there is no reason why anyone from a wide range of backgrounds cannot have a satisfying career as a paralegal.

• David Borrowman is the managing partner of Caesar & Howie, the central Scotland law group.

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

It only takes a few minutes in reality for the cries of "rising standards" within the Scottish legal profession to be proved wrong.

The following case reported in the Scotsman newspaper of a lawyer admitting to giving a client a false alibi (wasting one's career on a client, a dangerous thing indeed) will give the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal something more to shout about, or perhaps a victim to take their public rage out on, proving the world still needs their failed remit.

It has been pointed out that if the accused resigns his position on the Solicitors Roll, like Ms Angela Baillie who reputedly caused the SSDT such grief last week as to provoke a run to the newspapers in search of new powers, he could regain his practicing certificate later on but maybe Paul McBride his defence Counsel has already pointed that one out, being the same defence Counsel of Ms Baillie.

Of course, lawyers regularly give alibis to other lawyers when it involves a client complaint, on everything from defrauding banks & faking up files, to even defrauding clients & the inland revenue. It's just this time, the lawyer has admitted in court, giving an alibi to a client. Usually, there isn't even an eyebrow raised to the former, but the latter it seems is a taboo in the legal profession, not to mention against the law in both cases of course.

The spectacle of the SSDT calling for new laws after the event is reminiscent of the Law Society making a big fuss over the powers given to it in the Council of the Law Society of Scotland Bill, ran through the Scottish Parliament at great speed by former Tory leader David 'Taxi' McLetchie MSP & Roseanna Cunningham MSP, former chair of the Justice & Home Affairs Committee of the Scottish Parliament.

The Council of the Law Society of Scotland Act 2003 was yet another piece of legal profession sponsored legislation which was claimed would clean up the regulatory world of lawyer covering up for lawyer .. although as we all know, has had no impact on the ever rising levels of corruption in the Scottish legal profession, only proving yet again the failure of allowing lawyers to regulate themselves.

Article follows from the Scotsman - no news in the story on what happened to the "serious criminal" as he can't be named for legal reasons

One has to wonder why the accused solicitor has even had to admit guilt .. as there are a fair few in the legal profession with criminal convictions still practicing and some who have faced much more serious allegations than the solicitor in the story... it's just the Law Society of Scotland won't let the public know about it.

A LAWYER gave a "serious criminal" a false alibi for his trial on abduction and attempted extortion charges, a court heard yesterday.

The solicitor, Shahid Pervez, 39, told police that the man, who for legal reasons cannot be named, was in his office discussing an insurance claim when the crime was alleged to have been committed.

At the High Court in Glasgow, Pervez, of Crookston, Glasgow, admitted attempting to pervert the course of justice.

The judge, Lord Hardie, told Pervez he faced jail, but he continued his bail pending sentence next month, ordering him to report to the police twice daily. The judge was told that Pervez was now no longer practising as a solicitor and would eventually be struck off.

Alex Prentice, prosecuting, said Pervez was a conveyancing lawyer at Belton Pervez in Victoria Road, Glasgow, when the offence happened between 22 March and 23 May, 2005.

Mr Prentice said the lawyer was approached by one of his clients who was indicted for a High Court trial alleging charges of abduction, assault and attempted extortion.

He asked the solicitor to provide him with an alibi and Pervez agreed. A special defence of alibi was lodged for the trial, and the Crown instructed police to take statements from Pervez.

He told them the man was in his office discussing an insurance claim between 11:30am and noon, when it was alleged the crime was committed. He repeated this in a sworn affidavit.

Mr Prentice told the court concerns were raised that the alibi might have been concocted and police were instructed by the Crown to investigate.

Paul McBride, QC, defending, told Lord Hardie: "He is a naive, stupid young man who has succumbed to threats of violence from people involved in serious, monumental criminality."

Thursday, July 12, 2007

If there was a requirement that all members of juries had to be lawyers, judges, policemen, or their colleagues, appointed by the head of Scotland's Judiciary, would anyone think a fair trial could take place ?

How long, for instance, would it take the likes of Donald Findlay QC to point out one of his clients might not get a fair hearing because the jury was composed of Police Officers ? ... 5 minutes ?

However, this is considered the norm at the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal, when dealing with complaints & prosecutions against solicitors and there are no cries of lack of impartiality and no claims of lack of a fair hearing from the legal profession itself .. because lawyers prefer to be judged by their own, so they escape punishment of course. This has been the way complaints procedures have been rigged handled by the legal profession for decades.

The Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal describes itself on it's web site as :

"The Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal (SSDT) is an independent body which mainly deals with serious disciplinary issues that arise from time to time within the Scottish legal profession."

Independent, but organised & approved by the Lord President ... a member of the judiciary, a lawyer, member of the Law Society of Scotland ... how's that for independence ?

In another bash at putting forward the impression of independence, the SSDT goes on to say "The Tribunal normally sits with 3 solicitor members and 2 lay members: solicitor members cannot also be members of the Council of the Law Society (governing body in Scotland); lay members are drawn from all backgrounds and walks of life. All members are appointed by the Lord President of the Court of Session – Scotland’s most senior judge."

Pretty thick stuff from the SSDT to give the public the impression they are independent, but reading of their endeavors over the years, or having experience of the complaints process of the legal profession might lead one to think the Scottish legal profession learned their trade on how to write rules for themselves from the Enabling Act of 1933 in Germany written by the Nazis.

"lay members are drawn from all backgrounds & walks of life" .. and " are appointed by the Lord President of the Court of Session" ... almost makes one squirm, doesn't it ?

If you want to be a "lay member" in anything to do with self regulation, be it the SSDT, the Law Society of Scotland, ICAS, or any of the other rather infamously corrupt self regulators of the professions, it looks like you have to sit on a few other self regulatory, self pat on the back committees too ... in essence, no brickies or plumbers allowed.

Oh yes - the experience argument ... you have to be an experienced lay member of the public to understand these complicated issues of law and how complaints are dealt with, etc ...

or this : Council of the Law Society of Scotland v Gordon & Maria Thomson - in the case where the legal profession set up Gordon Thomson on false charges so they could take his business away from him (one of the legal firms I was using at the time a willing participant - Alex Morison & Co who 'cornered Mr Thomson's business on instructions from the Law Society) The powers of the SSDT were viciously used against Mr Thomson in that case - used as a lethal weapon against one of it's own who dissented from the line from Law Society HQ in Drumsheugh Gardens.

or this : Lawyer slammed for lying to client- reporting on an item from one of my cases, where even to this day, the lawyer concerned is still battling with the SSDT over the verdict against him, which Robson successfully challenged .. and the SSDT sit back and do nothing of course, because it ultimately involves myself.

Easy to conclude then from the above, that the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal need replacing with something much more independent, accountable and transparent - because the SSDT of the past and present is nothing of these things.

What of the SSDT when the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission comes along ?

Well, it will still exist, much as it currently is, biased, prejudiced, and lacking any accountability, transparency or honesty, unless further reforms come forth from the seemingly unwilling halls of the Scottish Executive Justice Department to do much on the injustice front so far.

Oh yes, I know it's early days of the new Executive .. we keep getting told that .. it's early days ... early days .. will they be saying that in 3 years time ? after a few more threatening 'open letters' from ex judges in the newspapers to the Justice Minister ?

Should the public become more vocal or active in pressing home their cases of injustice and calling for & gaining reforms to the legal system ? Yes, I think we should..

Following story from the Herald newspaper on the SSDT calling for more powers, when it should really be abolished and replaced by something not concocted by the legal profession itself.

The story reports on a vindictive diatribe from members of the SSDT who are using the Angela Baillie case as an example for a call for more powers, to give themselves yet another reason to exist of course and fiddle complaints against the leading lights of the legal profession while castigating those who have already been punished by the law or have resigned their registration as a solicitor ....

Surely this 'call' from the Tribunal for more powers, is a good example on it's own, to get rid of it and bring in a replacement to accompany the now dwindling spirit of independent regulation of the legal profession ...

Tribunal ‘had no power’ over lawyer who dealt in drugsSTEWART PATERSON July 10 2007

A solicitors' watchdog has called for a change in the law after it was unable to impose an effective punishment on a lawyer jailed for drug dealing.

Angela Baillie was sentenced to 32 months for smuggling heroin and valium into Barlinnie Prison in Glasgow.

By the time the Law Society referred her case to the Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal, Baillie had applied successfully to have her name removed from the roll of solicitors.

The tribunal is concerned that it could only censure the former lawyer instead of the maximum penalty of striking her from the register and has called for a change.

It wants a member with proceedings pending to be unable to remove their name so that it can take action.

Baillie, of Birnam Place, Glasgow, was jailed in April last year for delivering a cigarette packet stuffed with heroin and valium worth almost £1600 to a man in Barlinnie.

The case came before the tribunal in December but her name had been removed from the roll two days after she was convicted.

In a written ruling yesterday, the tribunal expressed concern about lacking the power to impose an appropriate punishment. It said: "The offences to which Baillie pled guilty before the High Court strike at the very heart of the obligations of honesty and integrity which are incumbent on every solicitor.

"It is difficult to imagine conduct more calculated to damage the profession in the eyes of the public."

It stated it was "wholly unsatisfactory" that the tribunal could not show the public and other lawyers the "odium" they felt about Baillie's conduct.

The judgment stated: "The tribunal wishes to place on record its concern that it lacks the power to impose upon the respondent a penalty which it would regard as appropriate in the circumstances of this case, but is placed in the position of doing no more than impose an inadequate and ineffective penalty."

The tribunal called on the Law Society to take urgent steps to change the rules on such matters.

Once a name has been removed from the roll, the tribunal is only able to issue a censure or a fine. However if the person has been sentenced to more than two years in prison it is unable to impose a financial penalty, and as Baillie was jailed for 32 months the only option remaining to the frustrated tribunal was censure.

One possibility recommended is that a solicitor should not be allowed to remove their name from the roll when disciplinary action is possible.

At the trial, Judge Lord Kinclaven told Baillie: "Your case, like many others in this court, clearly illustrates the damage and devastation that can be caused by involvement with drugs and the drug trade."

"The quantities of the drugs made it plain they were not for personal use. They were for supply in the prison system generally."

He added: "You were in a position of trust."

Baillie had used the lawyers' consulting room at Barlinnie for the hand-over on October 23, 2005.

The prisoner she met, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, was strip-searched as he left the meeting and the cigarette packet was found.

Here's an earlier article from theInjustice Scotlandwebsite on how decisions by the SSDT have been appealed by Michael Robson, whom I referedd to in the Edinburgh Evening News story earlier in the article :

Strangely enough, we didn't hear any calls for more powers for the SSDT over the successful Robson challenge, but then of course, that would be helping me if they actually did do something in this case, so of course, that couldn't be allowed now, could it ...

The Scottish Law Society can make mistakes

Read on for an interesting article from "The Herald" Newspaper, where a solicitor who was struck off by the Law Society of Scotland has had the decision quashed by the Court of Session.

This is a complicated case, and one quite different from a previous case which saw a stitch up of a famous Edinburgh Solicitor - Gordon Thomson & his wife's legal practice, which was becoming too successful for other members of the legal profession.

The case of Robson, however, shows just how belligerent the Law Society has been in its pursuance of anyone who takes on cases against them. However, it should be borne in mind that when someone does take such a case on, they have the same duty to their client which all other solicitors have, and thus, if a case becomes 'too rich' or is difficult to handle, the client has to be told, and not 'led up the garden path', particularly on matters which may involve long histories of multiple failures by the legal profession and its members, or the death of loved ones at the hands of negligent medical practitioners. ....

Quashing victory for RobsonSIMON BAIN ‘The Herald’ November 29 2004

The Court of Session has quashed a decision by the Scottish Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal to strike off Michael Robson, a principled solicitor who challenged the legal establishment and took on a slate of victims of legal injustice – only to find himself overwhelmed by the demands on his one-man practice.

The opinion of Lords Kirkwood, Maclean and Osborne, that the tribunal's sentence was "excessive", will be noted by those observers of the profess-ion who claim that solicitors seen as "troublesome" by the Law Society of Scotland are unlikely to prosper.

Robson, 52, was a successful lawyer who set up on his own in 1998, and quickly became a "last resort" for clients whose complaints against solicitors had been turned away by other practices, and rejected by the Law Society of Scotland.In 1999, he publicly challenged the Law Society's master insurance policy, now under investigation by the Office of Fair Trading, and criticised its complaints procedure.

Robson said the Law Society had "set up an insurance system which protects solicitors at the expense of their clients", while its complaints procedure was "the profession judging its members". Petitioning the Court of Session for a judicial review of one case involving misconduct by lawyers, Robson said then that the review "strikes at the fundamentals of the legal profession".

Less than three years later, his practice was closed down, and Robson struck off and sequestrated, following zealous policing of his business by the Law Society on behalf of demanding clients, some of whose cases the society itself had dismissed.Robson had been a solicitor for 25 years with an exemplary record when he was reported in 2001 by the Law Society of Scotland to the Scottish Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal for failing to answer letters.

In January 2002 the tribunal fined him £5000 for profess-ional misconduct and said he could no longer practice alone. The tribunal, a body with legal and lay members, ruled that Robson could work for another firm – but only with the approval of the Law Society. Although two firms immediately offered him an unsolicited position, the Law Society refused to approve his appointment, pushing the father of four into a financial crisis, on top of mounting health problems.

In June 2002 the Law Society reported him a second time to the tribunal, citing his failure to answer further letters dating from the previous year – though by this time Robson had already been forced to shut the firm and make his three staff redundant. Robson pleaded for an 11th-hour adjournment, as on the day he was unable to attend and plead mitigation, but the tribunal refused.

The hearing went ahead on October 8, 2002 and Robson was struck off. The following day, he was sequestrated. He was subsequently diagnosed with a sleeping disorder.

In their judgment, their Lordships state: "We have taken into account the fact that there had been no complaint of profess-ional misconduct when the petitioner had been a partner in two law firms, and that neither of the complaints which had been made involved any element of dishonesty. The professional misconduct of which he was found guilty was undoubtedly serious, but we also have to consider the financial position in which the petitioner found himself as a result of not being able to be employed as a solicitor under supervision after March 2002 because (the Law Society) would not approve the firm which had been prepared to employ him."

The decision to strike Robson off had been excessive, "particularly having regard to the financial consequences of (the Law Society's) decision in May 2002 to defer considerat-ion of the application to employ the petitioner as an assistant".

Robson commented: "These (clients) were people whom the Law Society had failed to look after. Then they put the boot in, when you are trying to deal with a very complex situation. It is a bit rich. They dredged up everything under the sun, for instance they persuaded one person to make a complaint of misconduct against me. I had been a solicitor for 25 years and had avoided complaints like the plague."

In 2001 Robson took on a case brought by two bankrupted developers against the Clydesdale Bank. As an investigation by The Herald revealed, Graeme Duffy and Richard Crocket were only sequestrated as a result of the disastrous employment by the bank of Euan Wallace, a well-known Glasgow surveyor who was shortly to be struck off for life for serious professional misconduct.

Three years later, there is independent evidence that Duffy and Crocket's property assets in March 2000 comfortably outweighed the sum for which they were sequestrated by the bank, which therefore acted wrongly. The developers had at the time just launched a £3m damages action against the Clydesdale over Wallace's conduct. But since the demise of Robsons WS, no law firm has been prepared to take their case to the House of Lords, though Robson subsequently reported the bank and its solicitors for prosecution on the grounds that a false claim for bankruptcy had been lodged.

Such daunting cases, however, took their toll on Robsons WS, and on the health of its founder, who now works as a part-time tennis coach. The judges quashed the decision to strike him off, and have substituted a five-year restriction which allows him to work for "such employer as may be approved by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland".

The petition to the Court of Session also argued that the tribunal was "not independent and impartial within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights", partly because the Law Society both brought complaints to the tribunal and appointed its members. The petition noted that "the Lord President did not have power to appoint any solicitor member who had not first been recommended" (by the society), and suggested that a tribunal member's "prospects of reappointment would be improved" if he consistently upheld complaints.

It further pointed to the Law Society's own submission to the Scottish Parliament in June 2002 which suggested that the Judicial Appointments Board might nominate tribunal members.

The Law Society's response to the court was that this was simply one of a number of "suggestions as to how the tribunal could be improved". The judges concluded that because "solicitor members must be knowledgeable and experienced and the actual appointments are made by the Lord President", the appointment procedure did not detract from the independence and impartiality of the tribunal.

Their lordships dismissed all other objections to the procedure.

Their decision to amend the sentence on Robson was, moreover, reached "with some hesitation".

In an immediate response to the ruling, the Law Society played down the judges' ruling that Robson should not have been struck off. Reporting on the case, its in-house journal gave priority instead to the fact that the Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal was found to satisfy the "independent and impartial tribunal" requirement of the European Convention.

Search This Blog

Contact the Diary

Have a tip or a story about a lawyer, a judge, the legal profession, Judiciary, Crown Office, a Court case, issues of Justice or Injustice, information on corruption in public bodies, politics & Government?

Crown Corrupt - Prosecutors criminal convictions revealed

Exclusive Report: Documents obtained by the Scottish Sun newspaper reveal Prosecutors based at Scotland’s Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) have been charged with a string of criminal offences over crimes ranging from violence to misuse of drugs, making threats and offences against Police Officers.

Crown Office Jet Set Prosecutors air travel junkets revealed

Exclusive Report: Prosecutors based in Edinburgh at the Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) - are now spending as much time in the air jetting between international destinations than chasing some of Scotland’s biggest crooks, tax dodgers, gangsters & serial offenders.

Documents obtained by the Scottish Sun newspaper show Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland and his team of staff jetting off to 39 international destinations including Hong Kong, Mauritius, Taiwan South Africa, Australia, Malta, San Francisco, and New York – all visited by Crown Office employees on taxpayer funded air junkets. Read more here: CRIME FLIES: Crown Office jet set junket racket

The proposals, backed by cross party MSPs during a debate in the Parliament’s main chamber on 9 October 2014 - Debating the Judges - call for the creation of a publicly available register of judicial interests containing information on judges backgrounds, their personal wealth, undeclared earnings, business & family connections inside & outside of the legal profession, offshore investments, hospitality, details on recusals and other information routinely lodged in registers of interest across all walks of public life in the UK and around the world.

UK consumers want independent regulation of lawyers

Media Report: RESEARCH conducted by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) – the body charged with investigating solicitors in England & Wales, shows there is strong support in the rest of the UK for a move to make the SRA fully independent of the Law Society of England & Wales.

Law & Disorder - Law Society self regulation protects solicitors

Crime Society: The powerful Law Society of Scotland – the lawyer’s trade union body which controls self regulation of Scottish solicitors – is facing calls to be stripped of any role in regulating the legal profession.

The Scottish Sun’s The Big Read: Law and disorder reports: CRITICS are calling for an end to the secretive “old boys’ club” which sees Scots lawyers police themselves. It took the Law Society of Scotland four years to give police details of its probe into an alleged mortgage fraud linked to solicitor Christopher Hales and MP Michelle Thomson. But legal experts insist this would not have happened if we had the same system of outside supervision that operates down south.

A new Lord President: Selecting a top judge for Scotland

The position of Lord President – with a salary of £220,655 a year, including perks, international travel and unrivalled power to challenge even the Scottish Parliament - is responsible for leadership of the entire Scottish judiciary in addition to chairing the Board of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. The Lord President is the most senior judge in Scotland, with authority over any court established under Scots law, apart from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

In response to questions from MSPs, JCR Gillian Thompson said: “I do not see that there is a reasonable argument to be made against people who are in public service—I might go further and say, in particular, people who are paid by the public pound—providing information, within reason, about their other activities.” Facing further detailed questions from the committee, JCR Gillian Thompson remained of the view judges should declare their interests including business activities, shareholdings and more – in a publicly available register of judicial interests.

Scotland's first Judicial Complaints Reviewer supports creating a register of interests for judges

The top judge came unstuck after he opposed the declaration of judicial interests, wealth & connections to big business. Prior to retirement, Gill waged a bitter two year battle with Scottish Parliament MSPs who are investigating proposals to create a register of judicial interests.

Wolffe Hall: Parliament House land titles lost to Faculty of Advocates

Media Report: Aninvestigation has revealedParliament House – the seat of power for Scotland’s judiciary and the nation’s highest, most expensive, elusive and pro-big business courts – has been lost to Edinburgh City Council after it was revealed Scottish Ministers gifted the land titles to the Faculty of Advocates after a £58m public funded refit of the sprawling court complex. Media attention to the land grab and questions in the Scottish Parliament have prompted Edinburgh City Council to demand the courts be returned to public ownership.

In a speech to the Commonwealth Law Conference 2015 in Glasgow, Lord Gill went on to joke about protesters being lucky they are not dragged away by Police. Gill took further shots at politics, judicial independence and democracy before fleeing the legal gathering with Lord Neuberger and other judges after they learned Wikileaks founder Julian Assange was booked to speak at the event.

Revealed: The bank of Scottish Legal Aid

Revealed: TIMES ARE TOUGH but not for Scotland’s legal profession as it was revealed the Scottish Legal Aid Board handed over more than One Billion Pounds of public money to lawyers since the 2008 financial market crash. The Billion pound Bank of Scottish Legal Aid is there to help out Scotland’s ‘struggling’ lawyers looking for a second car, fishing rights, sending kids to posh private schools, or a third buy-to-let property. Scottish Legal Aid figures paid to lawyers since 2008 reveal: 2013-14 £150.5m, 2012-13 £150.2m, 2011-12 £150.7m, 2010-11 £161.4m, 2009-10 £150.5m, 2008-09 £150.2m, 2007-08 £155.1m, total: £1.06Billion (£1,068.6m)

Scottish Parliament debate urges support for register of judicial interests

Media ReportMSPs overwhelmingly support a petition urging the Scottish Government to give further consideration to a register of interests for judges. The 90 minute debate, held on Thursday 09 October 2014 in the Scottish Parliament’s main chamber saw msps criticise Scotland’s secretive judges who refuse to disclose their hidden wealth, secret links to big business and even criminal records. Read more about the proposals for judicial transparency put forward in Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary and watch video clips of MSPs debating a register of interests for judges at InjusticeTV. The official report of the debate including video footage of each MSP who spoke can be found here: Debating the Judges

Revealed: Judges International travel junkets & state visits

Exclusive Report: JET-SETTING judges spent £26,000 of taxpayers' cash on overseas trips last year, a Scottish Sun on Sunday investigation can reveal. Top beaks flew out to destinations including Russia, Israel, Switzerland, Germany, France, Bulgaria, Lithuania and Qatar. The most expensive was a £5,800 trip to Canada by Scotland's second most senior judge, Lord Carloway. Lord Gill - who is the Lord President - also spent five days on a £2,800 trip to Doha, Qatar, where he gave speech on judicial ethics.

Judicial Rich-List reveals Judges financial links to crime companies

Exclusive Report: DISCLOSURES of judges personal shareholdings obtained under Freedom of Information legislation from the Scottish Court Service reveal a startling snapshot of the wealth of several key members of Scotland’s judiciary who sit on a powerful quango which controls Scotland’s courts. The declarations of the seven judicial members of the Scottish Court Service Board – including Scotland's top judge, the Lord President & Lord Justice General Brian Gill who earns £220K a year - reveal judges benefit financially from shareholdings in companies who provide services to the courts & justice system, companies convicted of criminal offences & involvement in ‘industrial’ espionage against China, banks fined for international financial market manipulation, and companies involved in bribes, bid rigging, and tax dodging.

Revealed: Top judge forced to recuse over relative in court

Exclusive Report: SCOTLAND’S top judge, the Lord President Lord Brian Gill has been forced to stand aside from hearing an unidentified case in the Court of Session because a relative who turned out to be Brian Gill jr, one of Lord Gill’s sons, represented a party involved in the court action which court officials are keeping secret.

Judge invests in bribes scandal companies

Exclusive Report: An investigation by the Scottish Sun on Sunday newspaper has revealed a top judge holds shares in a firm hit with a £13.9million proceeds-of-crime bill for bribing Saddam Hussein's regime,The Scottish Sun on Sunday can reveal. Sheriff Principal Alastair Dunlop 62, has a stake in Glasgow based Weir Group, hammered in 2011 for paying kickbacks to land contracts in Iraq. He also has shares in mining giant Rio Tinto, whose executives admitted bribery in China four years ago. A Holyrood committee is considering proposals that would require judges and sheriffs to publish their outside interests, including details of their finances, reported here: A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary

Judges reveal conflicts of interest

Exclusive Report: The Sunday Mail newspaper reports Scotland's judges are coming clean when they have to step away from court cases because of a conflict of interests. Scotland’s top judge has decided that for the first time the public can see online why judges and sheriffs have stood down from hearing criminal trials and civil actions. It comes after the Sunday Mail told of MSPs' anger that the Lord President Lord Gill had dismissed calls for a judicial register of interests and snubbed invitations to discuss his position at a Holyrood committee, reported in previous coverage here: A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary

Judges interests & shareholdings revealed

Exclusive Report: An investigation by the Sunday Herald newspaper reveals a senior sheriff presided over a court hearing involving Tesco at the same time as he held shares in the multi-national supermarket giant. Sheriff Principal Dunlop QC did not absent himself because having shares in a company that is party to a court action does not require a member of the judiciary to step down from a case. A Holyrood committee is considering proposals that would require judges and sheriffs to publish their outside interests, including details of their finances, reported in previous coverage here: A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary

Top judge in private meeting on judicial transparency petition

Media Report: Top judge Lord Gill met petitions committee members behind closed doors to discuss Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary and conflict of interests, but no minutes were taken. The Sunday Mail reports Scotland’s top judge met two MSPs in private after twice snubbing requests to give evidence in front of their committee. The judge is opposed to the transparency call and has previously refused invitations to attend the Scottish Parliament and face questions in public on his opposition to judicial transparency and the creation of a register of judicial interests. More on the debate on judge’s interests can be viewed here : A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary

Small concession offered by top judge as calls grow for judicial transparency

Judges should not be above scrutiny

Media Editorial: The Sunday Herald newspaper says in an editorial Judges should not be above scrutiny. The Lord President, who is the country's top judge, is against requiring his colleagues to list their financial interests (as called for in Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary) but he seems to have recognised political concerns about a lack of transparency.To this end, he is investigating the possibility of compiling a register of "recusals", which means examples of judges ceasing an interest in a court case due to a perceived conflict. More on the debate on judge’s interests can be viewed here : A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary

Scotland’s top judge takes anti-transparency position on proposal for judicial interests register

Lack of judicial transparency - No justice if it cannot be seen

Media Editorial: The Sunday Mail newspaper says Senior judge's refusal to give evidence to MSPs shows a lack of transparency, says Mail Opinion on calls for judicial transparency in Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary. It was an opportunity for Scotland’s top judge to go to Parliament and talk about how our legal system works and might work better. It would have added, as the public relations executives and politicians like to say, a little transparency. Instead, his refusal has only hardened the suspicion that our judges live and work in a bubble smelling of horse hair wigs, vintage port and even more vintage attitudes. More on the debate on judge’s interests can be viewed here : A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary

NEWS SPECIAL: Coverage of the Annual Report 2012-2013 of Scotland’s Judicial Complaints Reviewer reveals Scottish judges are slammed for secrecy, anti-transparency views & how they investigate complaints against other judges.Moi Ali, appointed by the SNP’s Justice Secretary as Scotland’s first Judicial Complaints Reviewersaid: “I think fundamentally the problem is the legislation. “The way it’s created, it’s about self- regulation so you have judges judging judges’ conduct. There isn’t really an independent element.”. Read more HERE

REVEALED : Scotland’s Judicial Complaints Reviewer gave evidence to MSPs at the Scottish Parliament stating her office has no powers to properly investigate complaints against Scottish judges and that the judicial office regularly block access to files and information relating to complaints. In England & Wales, it is done very differently. Read more HERE

EXCLUSIVE REPORT: Scotland’s judiciary are refusing to cooperate with the independently appointed Judicial Complaints Reviewer over complaints made against Scottish judges. Scotland’s top judge also stands accused of regularly blocking independent access to key documents relating to allegations made against judges. Read more HERE

Scotland's top judge objects to Holyrood transparency call for a register of judicial interests

Exclusive Report : Scotland’s top judge Lord Gill claims judges are exempt from declaring their full financial & other interests as called for in Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary A register could be created by the Scottish Parliament or by the Judicial Office for Scotland, which incorporates the Lord President’s office. Typically, such registers reveal details of hospitality, gifts, property ownership, shareholdings and personal or financial connections to outside organisations.

If you think Scotland's judges are honest, think again. An investigation reveals the true extent of their undeclared finances & interests. Read more HERE. Investigations have revealed Scotland's Judges have secret criminal records, massive wealth, unchecked influence, & murky investments along with connections to offshore tax havens, all of which go undeclared as there is no register of interests for the judiciary.

Business Interests: Are Scottish Judges overseas trips really just about law conferences?

Exclusive Report: Scotland's judges have racked up thousands of air miles on overseas trips, including jaunts to the US, India, Morocco and Malaysia. Taxpayers paid £83,644 to send judges and sheriffs and their partners around the world in the past three years revealed in this document. The Lord President also travels to Taiwan, South Africa & other countries yet refuses to travel 700m to the Scottish Parliament to face MSPs questions about judges’ secret undeclared interests.

Exclusive Report : A report published by the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice reveals Scottish lawyers take home a lavish £161million in legal aid payments on a tiny client base compared to other EU countries’ lawyers. The EU REPORT also shows that Scotland disciplines a tiny number of lawyers compared to countries of similar size, and that Scotland’s sheriffs & judges top the EU pay league. A large proportion of alleged criminals reported to prosecutors in Scotland are also escaping justice while lawyers scoop up legal aid fees for dealing with cases which never make it to court.

EU Justice Report : Scots Justice System is most expensive, has poorest regulation in Europe

A MUST READ REPORT by the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice reveals the Scottish justice system as the most unproductive, yet most expensive in the entire European Union. Scottish lawyers take tens of millions more in legal aid representing a population of 5 million than Italian lawyers who serve a population of 60 million. The report also reveals Scots judges are paid the highest in Europe, Scottish Sheriffs taking home an average taxpayer funded salary of £120K plus, while others in Scotland’s judiciary are paid £200K plus expenses.

The Scottish Civil Courts Review of 2009 authored by the then Lord Justice Clerk, now Lord President Lord Brian Gill, castigated Scotland’s Civil Justice System as being Victorian, costly, and unfit for purpose, yet years on from the review, little of the proposed reforms have been implemented due to pressure from vested interests in the legal world, and a lack of political will to deliver access to justice to all Scots.

The ‘independent’ lawyer run Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has lurched from scandal to scandal, and proved to be even worse at regulating complaints against Scottish solicitors than the Law Society of Scotland. Clients of Scottish solicitors who are forced to make complaints to the SLCC should read our previous reports on how the anti-client regulator may treat their case.

Exclusive Report: A Research Report from the University of Manchester School of Law, commissioned by the SLCC on the Law Society of Scotland’s two discredited client compensation schemes, the Master Insurance Policy & Scottish Solicitors Guarantee Fund reveals the extent of suicides, illness, broken families and financial ruin among clients who fall victim to rogue solicitors and attempt financial claims in order to recover funds & assets embezzled or stolen by their lawyers. The research report concludes the Law Society's Master Policy is set up “to allow solicitors to sleep at night”, so they can go on to ruin other unsuspecting clients. Read the full shocking story HERE

Name & Shame your crooked lawyer in the media

If you are making a complaint to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC), Law Society of Scotland or Faculty of Advocates about your solicitor or legal representatives, one of the best things you can do is tell the media about it & name your crooked lawyer.

Revealed: Suspended & Bankrupt lawyers are secretly still working in Scotland

Exclusive Report: An investigation has revealed twice suspended but still working as a solicitor John G O'Donnell has impersonated a deceased lawyer as part of an elaborate fraud, while staff at the law firm he worked at said nothing to clients. The Law Society of Scotland did nothing to prevent O’Donnell continuing his reign of scams against clients even after he was twice suspended & made bankrupt. O’Donnell was only found out after one of his clients, saw his photograph in an earlier Sunday Mail newspaper investigation..

Exclusive Report: An investigation has revealed a lawyer who works for the Citizens Advice Bureau is being probed after it’s claimed he targeted vulnerable clients for a crooked legal firm. A client involved in a rent dispute turned to CAB lawyer Gilbert Anderson, who is based at Hamilton Sheriff Court on a taxpayer funded salary. But the ex-Royal Marine sent the client and a friend into the clutches of twice suspended solicitor John G O'Donnell , who does not have a practicing certificate.

BONUS CULTURE of Crown Office fails to deliver justice

An investigation reveals Scotland’s Prosecutors have been caught up in their own BONUS CULTURE where fat cash hand-outs at the end of the year worth tens of thousands of pounds and sly Press Releases short on facts seem to be more important than catching real crooks and delivering on protecting the Scots public.

One of Scotland’s most famous Crooked Lawyers, Andrew Penman of Stormonth Darling Solicitors, Kelso in the Scottish Borders. Read the MEDIA COVERAGE of the case, details which the Law Society of Scotland and several Edinburgh law firms tried to bury.

If you have a similar experience with Stormonth Darling Solicitors, or any other corrupt law firm, we want to hear about it at scottishlawreporters@gmail.com